Tag: CLinton

A View From a Christian American Conservative Son of the South: The Politicians Don’t Need Us…Until It’s Time to Vote

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics1 Comment

Banning-Flags-600-LIAs a Son of the South, I am continuously amazed at some folks’ attitudes toward our beloved Dixie and all of us Followers of the Son of God, contained therein.

With all eyes focused on the South Carolina Primar Election, McClatchyDC.com has posted the following article…

ROBERTA, Ga.- Inside the Sunshine Coin Laundry near the Piggly Wiggly supermarket, Lagretta Ellington removed her family’s clothes from one of the large dryers and began to neatly fold them on a nearby table.

The air was moist and smelled of detergent. The floor was concrete. Her views of the presidential race were anything but. She was unsettled, and distrustful. The candidates just seemed like entertainers.
“I’m going to pray on it,” the 48-year-old Ellington said. “Hopefully, God will lead me in the right direction.”

In the South, now the pivotal battlefield of the 2016 presidential campaign, faith and politics walk the aisle together. And while Christians have always dominated American politics – Bernie Sanders this week became the first non-Christian ever to win a presidential primary in U.S. history – conservative Christians feel under siege.

Marriage is being redefined, and they’re being forced to go along. A new health care law mandates free contraception, even if it violates their core beliefs. Even the greeting “Merry Christmas” feels under assault.

Their anxiety and anger help explain the rise of Republican outsider candidates such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas (“Any president who doesn’t begin every day on his knees isn’t fit to be commander in chief”) and even billionaire Donald Trump (“If I’m president, you’re going to see ‘Merry Christmas’ in department stores, believe me”), perhaps the unlikeliest of vessels for such support.

And their clout is at its peak right now.

In South Carolina, white evangelicals account for 51 percent of the likely Republican vote in the coming GOP primary. Six more Southern states, including Georgia, will vote on “Super Tuesday” March 1. Nearly 600 of the delegates chosen the first week of March will come from states where white evangelical Christians are a majority of the electorate, according to Sabato’s Crystal Ball, a political newsletter from Larry J. Sabato and the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

And whether they pray at small chapels or sprawling megachurches, Christian conservatives across the South are driven by worries that their values are being threatened.

“Biblical values we would not be willing to compromise,” explained Dennis Lacy, lead pastor of North Highland Assembly of God in Columbus, Georgia.

“Do we not have any moral compass anymore?” said Dr. Randy Brinson, an evangelical Christian and physician in Montgomery, Alabama, who founded a group, Redeem the Vote, encouraging young people of faith to register and participate.

“Are we to say to people who have a more liberal viewpoint, ‘Does everything go?’ If there are no boundaries to things of moral behavior as Christians believe, if we throw out everything . . . there’s no more faith.”

June Bond, 61, a children’s advocate in Spartanburg, South Carolina, said many evangelical Christians “feel extremely pressured.” But she also tries to imagine what it must be like on the other side of the cultural divide.

“It’s one thing to listen to what our leaders say to us, but we also need to look at the other side and say, ‘What if . . . ?’ ” she said. “The South sometimes looks at things just kind of like, ‘This is what I was told.’ ”

Many say their objections to same-sex marriage are misunderstood.

It’s not “rooted in hostility and animus toward other people,” but because Christian conservatives believe marriage involves one man and one woman, said Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.EDITORS: END OPTIONAL TRIM
David Cooke Jr., the Georgia district attorney for Bibb, Crawford and Peach counties, doesn’t buy the “under siege” mentality of his more conservative brethren. He’s an evangelical Christian, and a Democrat, which he said was not as rare as you might think.

“When you limit the gospel to gays and abortion, there’s not a whole lot of talk about taking care of the stranger and the orphan,” Cooke said, seated in his courthouse office in downtown Macon. “I think it shows that for so many folks it’s not really about the message of the faith. It’s about cultural Christianity.”

Religion has always been part of the South’s DNA, a legacy of its rural past.

It was the lifeblood of many communities, a cornerstone of the culture. In “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil,” author John Berendt’s widely popular book about a Savannah, Georgia, murder, he wrote, “If you go to Atlanta, the first question people ask you is, ‘What’s your business?’ In Macon they ask, ‘Where do you go to church?’ ”

It would never occur to someone that you didn’t, added Cooke, who met his wife at a Macon church.

When you limit the gospel to gays and abortion, there’s not a whole lot of talk about taking care of the stranger and the orphan. David Cooke Jr., an evangelical Democrat and Macon, Georgia, district attorney

Even today, the states of the old Confederacy – along with Utah and Oklahoma ‑ make up the most religious states in the country, according to a 2013 Gallup survey.

“Now change is on the doorstep, and many are worried about what it’s doing to their communities,” said Marc Farinella, a Democratic strategist who oversaw President Barack Obama’s successful 2008 campaign in North Carolina. “There is a sense that their way of life is under attack.”

Christian conservatives feel it deeply, and resent it.

“We live in a society that has a lot of respect for diverse opinion and views, but it seems like anytime Christians express theirs, they can be lampooned,” said Lacy, the Columbus pastor. “We’re kind of open game. You can criticize any Christian and not get into trouble. But you try to criticize any other sect or group, that’s politically incorrect.”

Pastor Lacy is absolutely correct. In fact, as a Former Radio News Director in College, I can detect a condescending tone in this whole article.

In every single presidential election, since I first voted for Future President Ronald Reagan in November of 1980, the voters of the South have proven to be the linchpin upon which all presidential candidates’ victory depended upon.

If you were able, as a Democrat or a Republican, to get the voters of the South to cast their ballots for you, you became the President of the United States of America.

The South, to this day, remains essential to winning the White House.

The Liberals in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, alike, or the Vichy Republicans, as I call them, are all too aware of this political fact.

However, those who believe that the South, in the Year of Our Lord 2016, is still backwards, or somehow inferior to their point of view, or political ideology, jump at every opportunity to negate a period of our history in which American blood on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line was shed in combat.

For example, since we are on the subject of South Carolina…

Why did these Professional Politicians, Democrat and Republican,  shiftd the focus of the nation away from the mental illness of the sociopath who gunned down 9 innocent Christians at a Wednesday Night Church Service in Charleston, South Carolina, shifting our  country’s attention, instead, to the perceived offensive nature of the Battle Flag of the Army of Virginia?

Simple: Political Expediency.

By marginalizing the South through this effort, American Liberals, from President Barack Hussein Obama on down the line, were hoping to diminish and possibly negate the leverage that Southern States have in molding the Political Landscape of America.

Even after 7 plus years under a Far Left President, America is still a Center-Right Nation, in which Christians comprise 75$ of the population.

Through their efforts to make an inanimate object responsible for the death of the Pastor and 8 members of Emanuel AME Church, these politicians and their minions were hoping to swing the Political Pendulum toward their side of the Political Aisle.

They thought that, if somehow, they could place the Southern States in a “bad light” and at a Political Disadvantage, that perhaps our voice in the political affairs of this nation, would not carry as much weight.

Plus, between you and me and the water cooler, Liberals in the Northern and Western States remain ticked off that both American and International Businesses are still relocating to the South, where the climate is friendlier, the Unions have not made the cost of doing business unprofitable, and, where Old-Fashioned American Work Ethic still exists.

Just sayin’.

But, I digress…

Unfortunately for all of the Establishment-Preferred Presidential Hopefuls, being a Christian Conservative, including being one of us dreaded “Evangelicals”, means that while we all worship Christ as our Savior, we also each possess our own FREE WILL.

Unlike Modern Liberals, including Socialism-embracing Millennials, we are not a part of a Hive-Mind. We think for ourselves, voting for the candidate whom we believe will be the best leader for our nation and who will be able to be more effective in cleaning up the unholy mess that Barack Hussein Obama has created, during his time in office.

As a Christian American Conservative, living in Northwest Mississippi, I have watched, like those featured in the article, as our viewpoints here in “Flyover Country”, have been scorned and ridiculed.

And now, the Professional Politicians (i.e., the “usual suspects”) want us to give them permission to continue their mistreatment of us.

Guess what?

It ain’t happenin’ this time, Skippy.

Check out the poll numbers.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Illegal Alien Invasion: How Did They Get Here? And, Why Aren’t We Sending Them Back?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

illegal immigration AFBranco 71114Over the past few weeks, as the massive Illegal Alien Invasion has continued to overwhelm our nation’s resources on our Southern Border, I have been verbally sparring on internet political websites with Liberals over this situation. Of course, as their fallen messiah has, they are quick to use the term “refugees” in describing this Mexican Munchkin Migration, and loathe to use the term “illegals” to describe these lawbreakers who are entering our Sovereign Nation.

At one point during the discussion, I always bring up the question, “How are they arriving at our border?” I mean these “precious children” can’t be traveling thousands of miles through jungles and deserts, accompanied only by the Scooby Doo Backpack that they’re carrying on their shoulders.

It was reported, as far back as July 23rd, that,

The drug gangs are using scores of illegal underage immigrants as “bait” for overwhelmed Border Patrol agents to capture while nearby they are smuggling marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine across the border, the website said.

A military crackdown on drug traffickers in Mexico launched by President Felipe Calderon has forced the cartels, including Los Zetas, Sinaloa, and Knights of Templar, to move south and recruit gang members in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, who terrorize residents and create criminal chaos in the three impoverished countries where corruption is rampant.

In 2011, Guatemala’s murder rate was double that of Mexico while Honduras and El Salvador have had the world’s highest and second highest murder rates since the mid-1990s. Thousands of people from these nations decide to take a risk and join the surge of illegals attempting to enter the United States, rather than stay and live in fear and poverty.

The cartels used to work alongside human smugglers, known as coyotes. But in the past decade they have taken over the business, turning it into a sophisticated human-trafficking network while also continuing to smuggle in drugs, with border agents too busy catching crossing cheats to concentrate on nabbing drug mules.

The price of an illegal one-way ticket to the United States costs between $3,000 and $6,000, with hard-up family members in America sometimes transferring payments by wire on a monthly plan.

Migrants from Central America often ride on top of trains and buses from southern Mexico to border towns, an arduous journey where they will also face robbery, rape, and beatings at the hands of vicious drug and human traffickers, according to The Daily Beast.

So, how are they sneaking them through the entire country of Mexico?

The answer is: The Drug Cartels are fulfilling their mission with a little help from “our Latin American Friends”…

Though largely unreported in the U.S. mainstream media, the two nations agreed on July 7, in a presidential-level meeting in Mexico, to make it legal and safe for Central American immigrants, including unaccompanied minors, to cross Mexico’s border with Guatemala and transit Mexico en route to the U.S. border at the Rio Grande.

The agreement apparently does not recognize that the result of such trips – entry into the United States – remains illegal.

But to facilitate the program, the Mexican government announced plans to issue a new “Regional Visitor Card” that will provide documentation for the Central Americans to remain in Mexico as long as it takes to get to the United States.

Under the auspices of a “Southern Border Program,” Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Guatemalan President Otto Pérez, in a meeting in Mexico, agreed to take five concrete steps designed to “protect and safeguard the human rights of migrants who enter and transit Mexico, so as to order international routes of passage [in and through Mexico] to increase and develop the security of the region.”

The five steps in Mexican “Southern Border Program” included the following action steps:

1. Mexico established for the Central American migrants transiting through Mexico a new Mexican-government issued “Regional Visitor Card” that instructs the Mexican National Institute of Migration to recognize the holder as having been granted by the Mexican government the right to a “temporary stay” in Mexico. The purpose of the “Regional Visitor Card” is to grant Central American migrants entering Mexico across the border with Guatemala enough time and legal status to complete their journey to the United States.

2. Mexico plans to open 10 new border crossing checkpoints on the border with Guatemala and two more on the border with Belize to function as “Comprehensive Care Centers for Border Transit,” designed to register the Central American migrants with Mexican immigration authorities and to issue “Regional Cards” as part of a formal government processing allowing migrants from Central America to transit into Mexico on an official basis.

3. Mexico has decided to expand throughout the country the five medical care units originally established in Chiapas to give medical aid and temporary shelter to Central American migrants transiting through Mexico, with special attention given to unaccompanied minors.

4. Mexico has decided to create a new “Office for the Coordination of Comprehensive Social Services for Migrants on the Southern Border” to be attached to the Ministry of the Interior, tasked with coordinating interagency Mexican government efforts to provide humanitarian care and assistance provided by the Mexican government to migrants crossing the border with Guatemala, so as to guarantee respect for the human rights of the migrants.

5. Mexico pledged to continue playing an active role working with international organizations to participate in conferences organized to promote legal immigration, including continued sponsorship of forums including Mexico’s National Conference on Migration.

In the spirit that migration of Central Americans from Guatemala through Mexico will be more secure if it is more formally organized, Nieto announced Mexico’s new “Southern Border Program” was a step in the right direction.

Guatemalan President Otto Pérez noted the border between Guatemala and Mexico “offers an opportunity to show how we can improve the treatment of migrants and the relations between two peoples – Guatemalans and Mexicans – who have traditionally been brothers.”

Nieto also explained that the governments of Mexico and Guatemala have been working in cooperation with authorities in El Salvador and Honduras “to work in the same direction to make Central American migration more organized and safer.”

Nieto further announced that the Mexican Ministry of the Interior, working together with officials from Guatemala, will strengthen law enforcement intelligence gathering regarding Central American migrants to develop a technological platform to share in gathering the real-time biometric information believed essential for a formal registration process to issue the migrants appropriate Mexican government documentation for use in their transit across Mexico.

In other words, “We, don’t want them. You Gringos can have them. Vaya con Dios!”

So, what can be done?

Simple. SECURE THE BORDER NOW!

Perry to Fox’s Sean Hannity: “The single most important thing he could do is to put the National Guard on the border … That would send a powerful message.”

After their meeting Wednesday, Obama said he agreed with Perry on many of the governor’s border concerns. He called the discussion “constructive,” and even Perry said Obama was seemed engaged in the discussion.

Perry, however, later told Hannity that he still was puzzled about Obama’s lack of response to the border crisis, saying he did not know whether the president was “inept” or whether something else is going on with the president’s inaction. He blasted the “failure of this administration to see the border.”

Governor Perry, Obama knows exactly what is happening at the border. In fact, he encouraged it, for his own purposed, as I wrote yesterday.

Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, in her Op Ed, published earlier this week, in which she called for Obama’s Impeachment, nailed it, when she said,

In violation of our Constitution, he regularly ignores court orders, changes laws by executive fiat, and refuses to enforce laws he doesn’t like, including our immigration laws.

When Congress declined to pass amnesty for illegal immigrants’ offspring, he unilaterally enacted his own version of it, which created the current crisis on our border as illegal youth pour into our country to receive what he illegally promised them.

So, what is the solution to this “Humanitarian Issue”, as Obama and all of his hand-wringing hypocritical Liberal sycophants are calling this invasion?

Believe or not, a legendary Democrat Leader had the best solution I have heard so far.

The last bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform happened during President ill “Bubba” Clinton’s tenure. Bubba appointed former congresswoman and Democratic icon Barbara Jordan as its chair. Jordan came from humble beginnings to become a lawyer and the first Southern black woman elected to the House of Representatives. A DEMOCRAT, she was a leader in the civil rights movement, a professor of ethics, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and a world-class orator (two of her speeches are considered among the greatest of the 20th century). Her appointment gave the commission instant credibility. According to Jordan, she believed her responsibility as the head of the commission was to restore credibility to the U.S. immigration system. On the issue of illegal immigration, Jordan was very clear and succinct:

Unlawful immigration is unacceptable. Those who should not be here will be required to leave.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Senator Ted Cruz: Filibustering for Freedom

On By kingsjesterIn Politics10 Comments

Ted-Cruz-filibuster-SeussWe’re going to be gifted with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t, which purportedly covers at least 10 million more people without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it, but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a president who smokes … same sentence … with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect by the government, which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare — all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke.” – Dr. Barbara Ruth Bellar

As I write this post, Senator Ted Cruz, along with help for a few of his colleagues is holding the Senate Floor, speaking against the ruination of the finest Healthcare System in the world, under the monstrosity known as Obamacare, which is scheduled to begin October 1st..

To summarize where we are at…

The freshman senator took the floor Tuesday afternoon promising to speak “until I am no longer able to stand” and his effort continued overnight, usually with just two other senators with him in the Senate chamber.

By 5 a.m. Wednesday, the length of Cruz’s marathon discourse had surpassed more traditional talking filibusters delivered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in March and a roughly 14-hour filibuster delivered by the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) in 1964.

As he outlined his opposition to the health-care law, Cruz’s hours of oratory touched a broad mix of subjects and sources, ranging from lyrics from a song by country music star Toby Keith; excerpts from the book, “Atlas Shrugged,” a favorite of libertarians; quotations from the popular reality television show, “Duck Dynasty;” the unemployment rate among African American teenagers; how his father, Rafael Cruz, used to make green eggs and ham for breakfast; a recent acceptance speech by actor Ashton Kutcher at an awards show; and the restaurants Denny’s, Benihana and White Castle.

At one point Tuesday night, Cruz opted to read bedtime stories to his two young daughters, who he said were home in Texas watching television with his wife. Cruz first read “King Solomon’s Wise Words,” from the Book of Proverbs and then the Dr. Seuss classic, “Green Eggs and Ham,” saying that it was one of his favorite children’s books.

Several times Cruz read supportive messages sent to his office via Twitter. He frequently noted that James P. Hoffa, president of the Teamsters Union, has warned that the new health-care law may create “nightmare scenarios” for employers.

If Hoffa is correct, then Cruz said that “senators shouldn’t be asleep when the nation is undergoing a nightmare.”

Several like-minded Senate conservatives briefly joined Cruz for a time on the Senate floor Tuesday evening, including Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), two 2016 presidential aspirants. Cruz could yield to colleagues for long-form questions but could not leave the floor or sit.

His most frequent partner was Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who would offer the Texas senator a respite by speaking at times for almost an hour.

President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) and Former President William Jefferson Clinton(Bubba, to you and me) spoke out against his efforts yesterday:

During an informal discussion at a Clinton Global Initiative Forum in New York City, Obama and former President Bill Clinton focused mostly on the policy details of the law, with the current commander in chief warning that Republicans have tried to “scare” people into declining to get health care coverage.

“You’ve had is an unprecedented effort that you’ve seen ramp up in the past month or so that those who have opposed the idea of universal health care in the first place — and have fought this thing tooth and nail through Congress and through the courts — trying to scare and discourage people from getting a good deal,” Obama said.

Acknowledging the unpopularity of some of the bill’s requirements, Obama said the Affordable Care Act’s mandates on businesses and individuals are integral to a working and fair system.

“People generally don’t like to be told you’ve to get health insurance. And employers don’t like to be told you’ve got to give your employees health insurance,” Obama said. “But as a society what we cannot do is to say you have no responsibilities whatsoever but you’ve got guaranteed coverage.”

Democrats are pushing to publicize the benefits of the new law before open enrollment begins on October 1. Some Republicans have tied a bill to keep the government running to a measure defunding the health care law’s implementation, making the possibility of a government shutdown loom.

As gallant an effort as this is, by this wonderful public servant, the only ones listening to him, are those few colleagues I mentioned…and the American People. The Liberal, socialistic Democrats and their allies, the Vichy Republicans, like John “Juan McAmnesty” McCain and his pet dog Lindsey “Tiddie” Graham, refused to “sully their hands” and listen as Sen. Cruz pleaded for the future of this Republic.

They forgot long ago that they were elected to be OUR voice in Washington. Now, they only speak for themselves, their lobbyists, and an agenda based upon the failed teachings of Karl Marx.

Sen. Cruz is a breath of fresh air. Capra-esque, in fact, and highly reminiscent of the indefatigable Jefferson Smith, in Capra’s classic “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. Smith (the late, great Jimmy Stewart) says the following as he’s delivering his filibuster:

Just get up off the ground, that’s all I ask. Get up there with that lady that’s up on top of this Capitol dome, that lady that stands for liberty. Take a look at this country through her eyes if you really want to see something. And you won’t just see scenery; you’ll see the whole parade of what Man’s carved out for himself, after centuries of fighting. Fighting for something better than just jungle law, fighting so’s he can stand on his own two feet, free and decent, like he was created, no matter what his race, color, or creed. That’s what you’d see. There’s no place out there for graft, or greed, or lies, or compromise with human liberties.

And that, when you get down to it, is what Senator Ted Cruz has been speaking about, since Tuesday afternoon: LIBERTY.

Our American Freedom was endowed by OUR CREATOR. Obamacare is simply a step toward a totalitarian regime taking it away.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama/Syria: Declaring War By Executive Order

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

obamacarterSo, here we are, Americans. Sitting on the precipice, looking down into the Abyss, of a possible World War III. President Barack Hussein Obama’s Smart Power! has been a colossal failure, if its purpose was to keep the peace in the Middle East. If  The purpose of Obama’s Smart Power was replacing Moderate Muslim Leadership with Radical Islamacists, through violent revolution, the persecution of Middle Eastern Christians, and the loss of scores of human lives, then Smart Power! has been an unqualified success.

Now the Leader of America’s Regime, wants to involve us in the Civil War happening in Syria, because their president has been accused of launching a chemical attack against his own citizens.

Just a thought: If he goes through with this, what is Obama going to say if it turns out that al Qaeda launched the chemical attack? “Oops?”

A big problem, besides the fact that we do not need to be doing this, is,  the fact that Obama is Declaring War by Executive Order.

As you may know, if you took 9th Grade Civics class, like I did, Congress must authorize war.

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution says “The Congress shall have the power … To declare war…”

Article II, Section 2 says “The president shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States…”

Congress declared war:

In 1812 against Great Britain (War of 1812)

In 1846 against Mexico (Mexican-American War)

In 1898 against Spain (Spanish-American War)

In 1917 against Germany and Austria-Hungary (World War I)

In 1941 against Japan, Germany, Italy; in 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania (World War II)

Undeclared Wars:

There have been numerous undeclared wars in which the United States was engaged in military operations, but here are a few examples:

President John Adams asked Congress for legislation to protect American shipping, as American relations with France had deteriorated in 1798 to the point where the French navy had seized more than 300 American commercial ships. This was after the start of the French Revolution and was during a time of war between England and France.

President Thomas Jefferson asked Congress to pass legislation to protect American commercial ships against pirates from Tripoli in 1802; President James Madison did the same in 1815 against pirates from Algeria; the U.S. Congress authorized President James Monroe to use armed vessels to protect American shipping from pirates in the Caribbean and Latin American waters and he issued the Monroe Doctrine in 1823.

There were numerous wars fought against Native Americans.

U.S. military forces were used numerous times such as Commodore Perry carrying a letter from U.S. President Millard Fillmore to the Emperor of Japan and the opening of Japan to U.S. trade in 1853-1854; in the Boxer Rebellion in China 1900-1901; wars in Central America, etc.

Obama might want to consider what he is about to do, bypassing Congress and waging war on Syria. Public Support for “The Syrian War” is three times lower than it was for the beginning of the War in Vietnam.

And, with good reason. As I posited the other day, there are no good guys in the Syrian Situation.

The certifiable Former Democratic Congressman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich,  spoke to thehill.com, the other day. And, it a moment of remarkable (for him) lucidity, he claimed,

Airstrikes on Syria would turn the U.S. military into “al Qaeda’s air force,” former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told The Hill.

The outspoken anti-war activist said any such action would plunge the United States into another war in the Middle East and embolden Islamist militants fighting Bashar Assad’s regime.

“So what, we’re about to become Al Qaeda’s air force now?” Kucinich said. “This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we’re just going to have a ‘targeted strike’ — that’s an act of war. It’s not anything to be trifled with.”

The comments echo warnings from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who voted against legislation to arm the Syrian rebels earlier this year by saying such a move would boost al Qaeda.

Kucinich also said President Obama would be violating the Constitution if he doesn’t get congressional approval before taking any military action in Syria.

Kucinich retired last year after 16 years in the House when his Cleveland district was redrawn and he lost his primary. He led the fight against President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq and joined nine other lawmakers in suing Obama over his intervention in Libya two years ago.

Kucinich raised doubts about rebel forces’ allegations that Assad’s forces used poison gas to kill more than 1,300 people last week. He said the administration is “rushing” to what could becoming “World War Three” based on questionable evidence.

“This is being used as a pretext,” he said. “The verdict is in before the facts have been gathered. What does that tell you?”

Why, Mr. Kucinich, it tells this American, that Obama has been ready to do this for a long while now, quite possibly since the start of Arab Spring.

Back in May of 2011, during the zenith of Arab Spring, foxnews.com reported that

After popular uprisings overthrew regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, the Syrian government has used deadly force to quell demonstrations inside its borders. So far, the U.S. has shown no inclination to intervene militarily there, as it has to stop the advances of strongman Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya.

But Syria pushed the envelope over the weekend, with reports showing that Palestinians living in Syria were bused to the border with Israel in the Golan Heights, where demonstrations and violence broke out.

Asked about the incident, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney accused the government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad of “inciting” the protests to distract attention from demonstrations in Syria — a tactic he claimed would not work on the U.S.

Carney said Tuesday the U.S. was looking at additional measures to push Syria toward listening to its people.

“We are looking at ways to put pressure on the Syrian government … to pressure it so it ceases the violence against its own people and engages its people in legitimate dialogue,” Carney said.

While the White House is insisting that this action would not be “regime change”, it certainly sounds like Obama has been in favor of getting Syria “in line” with the other Middle Eastern countries, who were, like Egypt, taken over by Radical Muslim Groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood.

The concern raised by Kucinich is very real.If Obama’s strategy is to open the way for the Radical Muslim “Rebels” to take over Syria, with our help, then wouldn’t that be aiding and “abetting the enemy”?

Radical Muslims hate us, “The Great Satan”. What is Obama hoping to gain by lobbing a few strategic air strikes in Assad’s general direction? Certainly not fear.

As Democrat Presidents Carter and Clinton found out the hard way. Radical Muslims are not easily intimidated. 

After Carter’s failed Foreign Policy  debacles,it took President Ronald Reagan shooting a missile into Anwar Gadhafi’s bedroom, which shut him up for 25 years, to convince the Muslims that we meant business.

And, later on, it was President Clinton’s less-than-effective Foreign Policy ,which was the primary factor in the escalation of the growth of Radical Islam, leading up to the worst Terrorist Attack ever perpetrated on American Soil, on that horrible day of September 11, 2001.

Unfortunately for us, I do not believe that Obama has ever studied Carter and Clinton’s failed Foreign Policy efforts, because he sure does seem determined to repeat them.

God protect us.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Bosnia…Libya…Syria

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

clintoncartoonIn the late 1990s, President Bill “Bubba” Clinton got our country involved in another nation’s civil war.

On August 15, 1996, Ted Galen Carpenter, Vice-President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute and the author of Beyond NATO: Staying Out of Europe’s Wars. wrote a Foreign Policy Brief titled “The Domino Theory Reborn:  Clinton’s Bosnia Intervention and the “Wider War” Thesis.”

Here is an excerpt.

President Clinton’s assertion that the U.S.-led NATO mission in Bosnia is essential to prevent a wider European war is erroneous. Two of the wider war scenarios–Serbia as a runaway expansionist power like Nazi Germany and the prospect that the Bosnian conflict could ignite a continental conflagration just as a Balkan incident sparked World War I–are so far-fetched that they should be dismissed out of hand.

The other two scenarios–that copycat aggressors elsewhere in Europe would be emboldened by a NATO failure in Bosnia and that a Bosnia-style war could erupt in the southern Balkans, especially in Kosovo and Macedonia–have greater validity. But the success or failure of the Bosnia mission will have little impact on such dangers. Conflicts in other parts of Europe arise from local conditions and historical factors, and the belligerents will continue to pursue their unique agendas. War in the southern Balkans would not be a matter of the Bosnian conflict’s “spreading.” The disputes over Kosovo and Macedonia involve different grievances and, largely, a different set of potential adversaries.

The wider war thesis is merely a refurbished domino theory. Not every armed conflict in Europe is destined to lead to a massive war that would affect important American security interests.

…President Clinton repeatedly defended his decision to send American troops to Bosnia by insisting that if the United States and its NATO allies did not take steps to solidify the fragile peace in that country, they would risk the outbreak of a “wider war.” Such a conflict would threaten overall European stability, which is deemed important to America’s own security and well-being. Thus, in addition to any moral imperative to stop the carnage in Bosnia, the United States had no choice but to assume a leadership role to suppress the fighting, lest Europe descend into chaos for the third time this century.

The president used that reasoning in a November 1995 letter to House Speaker Newt Gingrich shortly before the signing of the Dayton accord.

This Administration, and that of previous Democratic and Republican Presidents, have been firmly committed to the principle that the security and stability of Europe is of fundamental interest to the United States. The conflict in Bosnia is the most dangerous threat to European security since the end of World War II. If the negotiations fail and the war resumes, as it in all probability would, there is the very real risk that it could spread beyond Bosnia, and involve Europe’s new democracies as well as our NATO allies. Twice this century, we paid a heavy price for turning our backs to conflict in Europe.

Secretary of State Warren Christopher had made a similar argument earlier, contending, “Twice in this century we have had to send our soldiers to fight in wars that began in Central Europe.” On another occasion he insisted that unless the Dayton peace accord succeeded, the Bosnian conflict could someday involve “the rest of Europe.” James Steinberg, director of policy planning at the State Department, was equally apocalyptic. “Without U.S. leadership in Bosnia, we would face the imminent danger of a widening war that could embroil our allies, undermine NATO’s credibility, destabilize nearby democracies, and drive a wedge between the United States and Russia.”

The president and his advisers tend to be vague, how-ever, about how the bloodletting in Bosnia could lead to a wider European war. Proponents of the U.S.-led peace enforcement mission act as though that danger were self-evident, but a careful examination suggests that most of the wider war scenarios are implausible.

That conclusion has important implications beyond the administration’s Bosnia policy, for the assumption that small conflicts will usually lead to larger ones is a crucial premise underlying Washington’s global network of security commitments. A proactive U.S. policy (including a military presence) in such regions as Europe, East Asia, and the Persian Gulf is supposedly essential because it preserves stability and makes any armed disruption less likely. Without that stabilizing U.S. role, the argument goes, there will be a proliferation of minor conflicts, any one of which may ignite a regional war that will entangle the United States. But if the wider war thesis is invalid with regard to Bosnia, serious questions ought to be raised about its validity elsewhere–indeed, about the intellectual foundation of America’s overall security strategy.

Current United States President Barack Hussein Obama, already made history repeat itself, by getting us involved in the civil war in Libya, which led to a Radical Muslim government being installed, and eventually, 4 brave Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, being savagely murdered.

Now…it appears that Obama is about to double down…

The Daily Caller’s Ariel Cohen reported yesterday that…

The White House said Friday it does not plan to send U.S. troops into Syria, despite offering aid to rebel groups fighting President Bashar al-Assad.

“Nobody has asked us to [go into Syria]. The Syrian opposition does not think that it’s a good idea,” Ben Rhodes, current Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication, said during a White House press conference Thursday evening. ”We certainly don’t think it’s in our national interest to send U.S. troops.”

The White House distinguished their actions in the Middle East from those of the previous administration’s, expressing a reluctance to enter a scenario similar to the 2003 Iraq War.

“We need to be humble here about our ability to solve the problem in Syria,” Rhodes said. “I think recent history teaches us that even when you have U.S. troops on the ground, you’re not necessarily going to be able to prevent violence amongst civilian populations. We saw that in Iraq, for instance. And at the same time, when U.S. troops are on the ground, that involves us in a much more dramatic way of making us the issue instead of the interest of the country where we are.”

Instead of sending U.S. troops into Syria, Obama plans to help opposition groups on the ground.

“Our stated national policy is for Bashar Al-Assad leave power,” Rhodes said. “It is our preference that this be done politically, but we are going to continue supporting those in Syria who are working for a post-Assad future.”

Rhodes said that the best course of action in Syria is to strengthen a “moderate opposition that would be able to represent the broader Syrian public” by providing aid to the rebel groups, but the administration has yet to comment on the specifics of the aid.

“While I understand the interests, we’re just not going to be able to get into that level of detail about the type of resistance that we provide,” Rhodes said.

“I’m not going to be able to inventory the types of support that we’re going to provide to the [Syrian Military Council], but I’d point to my previous answers — suffice it to say that a decision has been made about providing additional direct support to the SMC to strengthen their effectiveness,” Rhodes said. “This is more a situation where we’re just not going to be able to lay out an inventory of what exactly falls under the scope of that assistance, other than to communicate that we have made that decision.”

Critics opposing U.S. involvement in Syria claim that the White House can never be completely sure who receives American aid within the rebel groups — or how they will use it.

“It is unclear what national security interests we have in the civil war in Syria,” Kentucky Republicans Sen. Rand Paul wrote in a CNN.com piece warning against American intervention in the Middle East. “It is very clear that any attempt to aid the Syrian rebels would be complicated and dangerous, precisely because we don’t know who these people are.”

As I first reported in May, there is just one problem with arming these “Freedom Fighters”. It’s the same “problem” that we faced in Libya.

BBC.co.uk reported the following on April 10th…

The leader of the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist group fighting in Syria, has pledged allegiance to the leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Abu Mohammed al-Jawlani said the group’s behaviour in Syria would not change as a result.

Al-Nusra claims to be have carried out many suicide bombings and guerrilla attacks against state targets.

On Tuesday, al-Qaeda in Iraq announced a merger with al-Nusra, but Mr Jawlani said he had not been consulted on this.

Al-Nusra has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the US.

Debates among Western leaders over whether to arm Syria’s rebels have often raised the concern of weapons ending up in the hands of groups such as al-Nusra.

“The sons of al-Nusra Front pledge allegiance to Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri,” Mr Jawlani said in a recording released on Wednesday.

But Mr Jawlani said al-Nusra had not been consulted on the merger with al-Qaeda in Iraq and insisted his group would not change its stance in Syria.

The al-Nusra statement assured Syrians that the “good behaviour” they had experienced from the front on the ground would continue unchanged, the BBC’s Jim Muir reports from neighbouring Lebanon.

Mr Jawlani said that the oath of allegiance to Zawahiri “will not change anything in its policies”, our correspondent adds.

In his biography, “The Audacity of Hope”, written by Bomber Bill Ayers, Obama says that,

I will stand with them [Muslims] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

That ugly direction is the Middle East…again.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

BenghaziGate: The Ol’ Washington Two-Step

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

It appears that Congress is receiving the ol’ Washington two-step in their attempts to try to find out what really happened on 9/11/12 at the Benghazi Consulate Compound.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have questions for former CIA Director David H. Petraeus about the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, his recently disclosed extramarital affair and other issues — but their queries will have to wait for a later date.

Acting CIA Director Michael Morrell will testify Thursday in closed-door hearings of the Senate and House intelligence committees instead of Mr. Petraeus, who resigned abruptly last week after admitting he had an extramarital affair.

…Intelligence committee leaders will question Mr. Morrell and FBI Deputy Director Sean Joyce about Mr. Petraeus’ affair during meetings Wednesday, a day before the closed-door hearing at which Mr. Petraeus originally was scheduled to appear.

Congressional leaders indicated that they still might call on Mr. Petraeus to testify eventually.

“I would not rule out Gen. Petraeus being called to testify. That still could happen at some point in time,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican and vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, said on ABC’s “This Week.”

“I don’t see how in the world you can find out what happened in Benghazi before, during and after the attack if Gen. Petraeus doesn’t testify,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

One former senior congressional staffer, who asked for anonymity because of the sensitivity of current employers, told The Washington Times that Mr. Petraeus would be “duty-bound” to testify, even as a private citizen.

“He is still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He could be asked to testify as a former senior official, and if he refuses — which I don’t think he would — he could be subpoenaed,” said the staffer, who is the director of a House subcommittee.

Mr. Chambliss said that, in the meantime, it is “fine” for Mr. Morrell to testify in Mr. Petraeus’ place at Thursday’s classified hearing, along with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Matthew Olson, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center.

Mr. Morrell “certainly was there when all the decisions were made relative to Benghazi,” the senator said.

Mrs. Feinstein also ruled out any connection between Mr. Petraeus’ resignation and its postelection disclosure, and political fallout from the Benghazi incident. For several days after the attack, administration officials said it emerged from spontaneous protests, not terrorists.

There was “absolutely not” any connection to Benghazi, Mrs. Feinstein said. “And, I think if you really think this thing out, you will — everybody will come to that same conclusion.”

But Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN’s “State of the Union” that the details leaked to the media so far do not makes sense to him.

“It seems this [investigation] has been going on for several months, and yet now it appears that they’re saying the FBI did not realize until Election Day that Gen. Petraeus was involved. It just doesn’t add up,” said Mr. King, who also is a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “I have real questions about this. I think the timeline has to be looked at.”

Okay…well, I guess they’ll just have to rely on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s testimony.

Oh, wait:

…Clinton is reportedly scheduled to travel to Singapore, Australia, Thailand, Burma and Cambodia while the hearing will take place.

The Senate Intelligence Committee also plans to hold a closed-door hearing the same day, according to spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

At a House hearing before the Nov. 6 elections, Republicans said President Barack Obama’s administration failed to provide adequate diplomatic security before the Benghazi attack and sought to play down the role of terrorists afterward. Democrats defended the administration’s performance and said Republicans were seeking to exploit the attack for political gain.

Clinton, meanwhile, vowed to keep good on her promise to increase security at U.S. diplomatic outposts.

“We now have a formal Accountability Review Board investigating the terrorist attack that killed Chris, and we will certainly apply its recommendations and lessons learned to improving security everywhere,” Clinton said during a tribute to Stevens at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington.

The issue is that the chairman of the Accountability Review Board, U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering, has come under suspicion for being sympathetic to Islamist causes.

Meanwhile, author Ed Klein believes the Clintons are rallying their lawyers in the event the Secretary of State is subpoenaed. Some believe Clinton when she claimed that she did order additional security for the Benghazi compound and that the request had “not been carried out.”

With talk of Hillary Clinton stepping down from her post, it is possible that she may be more outspoken about the administration’s handling of the deadly terror attack come 2013.

And, this just broke wide open yesterday:

Paula Broadwell, the biographer revealed as the woman having a secret affair with the now-former CIA director, gave a talk at the University of Denver on Oct. 26 in which she appeared to reveal sensitive, maybe even classified, information about the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

The most interesting revelation is her claim that the CIA was holding several Libyan militia members prisoner, which may have prompted the attack. (Though she also sought to explain the Obama administration’s initial view that the attack was linked to the YouTube video Innocence of Muslims, an anti-Islam polemic that sparked riots across the Muslim world.)

She also said flatly that forces at the CIA annex had requested backup from a special Delta Force group she called the CINC’s in extremis force. It was not clear whether she was basing her comments on an Oct. 26 Fox News report by Jennifer Griffin, or whether her information came from elsewhere. (Griffin refers to it as “Commanders [sic] in Extremis Force,” but does not mention Delta Force or any Libyan prisoners.)

A CIA spokeswoman disputed the Fox News account at the time, saying, “no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.” The agency later released a timeline of that evening’s events that cast doubt on Griffin’s story.

In any case, Broadwell’s remarks, which were first reported by Arutz Sheva, are obviously very interesting in light of this week’s big news, as well as the Wall Street Journal’s revelation that the FBI found that Broadwell was in possession of classified documents (though she was never charged with any crime).

Her comments came in response to a questioner who asked her to comment on Petraeus’s handling of the events in Libya.

With this new information leaked by Miss Broadwell, it’s imperative that someone in the Administration needs to speak to the Senate Committee concerning that horrible evening in Benghazi.

I have an idea: Why don’t they ask the president to stop by before he heads out for his upcoming trip to Asia , scheduled for November 17th?

And, if that doesn’t work with his schedule (he likes to sleep in, you know), he could speak directly to the American people, who deserve to know the truth.

Of course, that is about as likely to happen as Obama making a guest appearance at a Gaither Concert.

Until He comes,

KJ

Another Saturday Morning With Bubba

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Well, howdy, Mr. President. Good to see you. Please…have a seat.

Waitress, one Rooty-Tooty Fresh ‘n Fruity Breakfast for President Clinton, please, with a large sweet tea to drink.

Wow, Mr. President. Did you see this article in the New York Post yesterday? You didn’t? Here’s, let me read some of it for you:

The title of Klein’s explosive, unauthorized bio of Obama, “The Amateur” (Regnery Publishing), was taken directly from Bill Clinton’s bombshell criticism of the president, the author said.

“Barack Obama,” Bill Clinton said, according to book excerpts, “is an amateur.”

The withering criticism is incredible, given the fact that Bill Clinton is actively campaigning for Obama’s re-election.

But according to the book, Bill Clinton unloaded on Obama and pressed Hillary to run against her boss during a gathering in the ex-president’s home office in Chappaqua last August that included longtime friends, Klein said.

“The economy’s a mess, it’s dead flat. America has lost its Triple-A rating . . . You know better than Obama does,” Bill said.

Bill Clinton insisted he had “no relationship” with Obama and had been consulted more frequently by his presidential successor, George W. Bush.

Obama, Bill Clinton said, “doesn’t know how to be president” and is “incompetent.”

But Hillary resisted the entreaties, according to two of the guests interviewed for the book.

“Why risk everything now?” a skeptical Hillary told her husband, emphasizing that she wanted to leave a legacy as secretary of state.

“Because,” Bill replied, his voice rising, “the country needs you!”

“The country needs us!” added Bill.

He later even joked about the prospect of having two Clinton presidential libraries — about the only time that Hillary cracked a smile.

“I want my term [at the State Department] to be an important one, and running away from it now would leave it as a footnote,” Hillary argued.

She said she had the option of running again in 2016.

But Bill wouldn’t let go.

“I know you’re young enough!” Bill said, his voice booming. “That’s not what I’m worried about. I’m worried that I’m not young enough.”

“I’m the highest-ranking member in Obama’s Cabinet. I eat breakfast with the guy every Thursday morning. What about loyalty, Bill? What about loyalty?” she responded.

“Loyalty is a joke,’’ Bill shot back. “Loyalty doesn’t exist in politics.”

Bill’s verbal battle with Hillary over the presidency, if anything, intensified when daughter Chelsea showed up with her husband, Marc Mezvinsky.

“You deserve to be president,” Chelsea said.

Bill was clearly pleased that Chelsea was on his side and vowed to have allies commission polls on a Hillary-Obama matchup.

“What are you trying to do — force my hand?” Hillary said.

“I want everyone to know how strong you poll,” Bill said.

Hillary said, “Go ahead and knock yourself out.”

Well, Mr. President, the publishing of this book about you certainly isn’t going to help the Missus’ relationship with “The Lightbringer”, is it?

But, in reality, you’ve felt this way for a while, haven’t you?

Remember back on that Friday afternoon in December 2010?  No?  Well, Jon Ward of The Daily Caller described it this way:

In terms of Washington political drama, Friday was an instant classic.

President Obama ushered former President Bill Clinton to the White House briefing room late Friday for an impromptu press session, then abruptly left the wonky and winsome Arkansan at the podium by himself to defend the Obama administration’s tax deal.

“I’ve been keeping the first lady waiting for about half an hour, so I’m going to take off,” Obama said.

Clinton chuckled, joking, “I don’t want to make her mad. Please go,” and then quickly turned back to the microphone and began taking questions from the White House press corps, which had been given no advance notice of the two presidents’ trip to the briefing room.

At the same time on Capitol Hill, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermont independent, was in his sixth hour of speaking on the Senate floor in a real life filibuster of the president’s tax deal. He began talking shortly before 10:30 a.m. on Friday and was still speaking at 6 p.m.

“I think that the American people don’t like this agreement,” Sanders said, predicting that if the deal to extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for two years were to pass, all cuts – even those for the top brackets, which he opposes – would be “extended long term.”

Despite Sanders’ filibuster, the real obstacles to the deal’s passage are in the House, where Democrats are incensed at the deal, in some ways on substance but also in large part because it was brokered directly with Republicans and without their input.

Clinton’s main purpose in appearing before the press was to lobby the public, but even more so House Democrats, to accept the deal.

“A lot them are hurting now, and I get it,” Clinton said. “I have an enormous amount of respect for the Democrats in the House … I regret that so many of them lost.”

And, just think, Mr. President, thanks to this “amateur” in the White House, more of your Democratic friends are going to lose their jobs this November.  

And, if we’re lucky, the guy you rightly pegged as an amateur will, too.